Summary
opening a door is a minimally intrusive safety precaution, incident to a valid traffic stop
Summary of this case from State v. MatthewsOpinion
2014-11-20
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyese FUNDERBUNK, Defendant–Appellant.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Svetlana M. Kornfeind of counsel), and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York (Jason S. Gould of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval Simchi–Levi of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Svetlana M. Kornfeind of counsel), and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York (Jason S. Gould of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval Simchi–Levi of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ANDRIAS, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J. at suppressionhearing; Cassandra M. Mullen, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered October 26, 2010, as amended December 10, 2010, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The only police activity challenged on appeal is an officer's act of opening a car door during a lawful traffic stop, which ultimately led to the recovery of contraband. Defendant concedes that the police were entitled to order the occupants to come out of the car ( see People v. Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, 545 N.Y.S.2d 90, 543 N.E.2d 733 [1989], cert. denied493 U.S. 966, 110 S.Ct. 411, 107 L.Ed.2d 376 [1989] ), but argues that they were not entitled to open a car door without individualized suspicion of criminality.
Opening a door is a minimally intrusive safety precaution, incident to a valid automobile lawful traffic stop (People v. David L., 56 N.Y.2d 698, 451 N.Y.S.2d 722, 436 N.E.2d 1324 [1982]revg. on dissent,81 A.D.2d 893, 895–896, 439 N.Y.S.2d 152 [2d Dept.1981] ). Such an action is comparable to, and actually less intrusive than, ordering the occupants to exit the car. We find nothing in People v. Garcia, 20 N.Y.3d 317, 959 N.Y.S.2d 464, 983 N.E.2d 259 (2012) to suggest that David L. should no longer be followed.
Here, an officer acted reasonably in opening a door because the car's excessively tinted windows obstructed the view of the car's interior, including the rear seat passenger area, and the officer heard a fellow officer direct the rear passenger to stop moving and place his hands in view. Accordingly, opening the door was a reasonable safety precaution ( see e.g. People v. Gonzalez, 298 A.D.2d 133, 747 N.Y.S.2d 511 [2002], lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 558, 754 N.Y.S.2d 210, 784 N.E.2d 83 [2002] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.